Flying out of line of sight
- Thread starter Robbie-O
- Start date
Agreed.....some of us use these to try to make a little money.....those that have the "It doesn't affect me" attitude really make it hard on those of us that have actually studied and received the proper licensing for commercial use.
Cookedinlh
Well-Known Member
I just call them first . . file a NOTAM . . . listen out on the correct VHF freq . . and give way ( or land) if there is any potential conflict with local air traffic. I have not flown under ATC control however, ie Class C or D Airpsace . . but I have in CLASS F (Restricted Military) with the proper coordination . . just have to ask the right people it seems. . . and you should know what you are doing and just plan ahead. I do feel for the recreational flyers here in Canada though . . that Interim Order was just a CYA move to prevent Transport Canad from being responsible for ANY incident involving a drone.
It's not a silly argument in the least if you use it over uninhabited locales, like oceans, valleys, plains, mountains, etc. There are more places to fly BLOS than there are racetracks. The capability to go to the racetrack, or in this case, out in the country with your Mavic actually makes the case for the argument. It's capability should be used judiciously.
Be careful. You are not an authority that deserves an explanation. Try to avoid previous habits please. Politely asking here.
The footage on this site is completely illegal of course, according to the UAV regulations of Italy posted on the same site. BTW, you might lose your UAV in in the crater at Mount Etna, and environmentally contaminate the volcano
.
rydfree
Well-Known Member
So they fully expect you to test the limits of your vehicle on lonely backroads , uninhabited locales etc and everything is fine ? Gotcha ,LOL
Your statements for the most part are true. Where they fall short is where Minister Marc Garneau suggests that complainants call 911 to report what people "think" are violations. That's more like a police state where everybody "snitches" on everyone else. I wish it were all as simple as we would like to make it. In Canada, we will see where the fallout happens. My Air Can buddy (30+ bird strikes) says he has never experienced a sighting of a UAV and doesn't know any pilot who has told him of one or reported one. Maybe it's less common than we think, or maybe even more common than we think. I've been on commercial flights where we have had "near-misses" (other jets really, really close) but I suspect they go unreported for good reason.
Let me try this slower and more deliberate. Cars to the limits on track only. Quads in the countryside areas. There are places where your car can be pushed (the track), and places your quad can be pushed (open spaces). It's just not "the silliest argument a BLOS flyer can ever utter". See the difference?
Cookedinlh
Well-Known Member
I just call them first . . file a NOTAM . . . listen out on the correct VHF freq . . and give way ( or land) if there is any potential conflict with local air traffic. I have not flown under ATC control however, ie Class C or D Airpsace . . but I have in CLASS F (Restricted Military) with the proper coordination . . just have to ask the right people it seems. . . and you should know what you are doing and just plan ahead. I do feel for the recreational flyers here in Canada though . . that Interim Order was just a CYA move to prevent Trans
Good Comments but I don't fear the calls because I stay within limits . . . I also call the local 911 operator (on a special non-911 number) and they record where I am so when some reckless fool makes someone call 911 . .. they already know I'm legal and I have an official record of where I am so they can't pin it on me. I recommend that if you fly regularly near airports or restricted zones. As for your Air Canada friend ask him if he's ever done a search on CADORS for UAV/Drone violations . . there are over 50 real ones around major airports and sea ports already this year
Last edited:
The point is not so much about being able to see it at 1000ft (although with the right cloud cover it isn't all that difficult) it is more about being able to see it higher than 400ft so the limit becomes more about what you can see rather than an arbitrary 400ft altitude.
I take it as a sign that when we engage directly with the CAA in the UK and present a strong case, they are more interested in real safety than just setting arbitrary limits.
Is this a CAR606.66 item? How did you do your search? These things keep showing up, but even my buddy who is an experienced high hours captain questions the validity of the reported incidents based on his experience. Perhaps we all should be on the investigation teams. There also seems to be some reason to believe that reports of "drone" violations may not even be UAVs. I'm not saying that violations have not occurred, as we have seen footage of violations on this site. But it is much harder to prove a UAV was really involved. It requires that these pilots actually "know" what a UAV is. My friend says that it may be the case that they are in fact seeing something else entirely, like balloons for instance. Other investigations have suggested that "drones" turned out to be birds as well, so the numbers just keep going down. In the U.S. - 13,000 bird strikes and not one "drone" strike. Hmmmm! We want to keep it that way, with maybe less bird strikes. Are you suggesting that we all call the non-911 number to report when we are flying anywhere? I know that's a good alibi, but really!
rydfree
Well-Known Member
Let me try this slower and more deliberate. Cars to the limits on track only. Quads in the countryside areas. There are places where your car can be pushed (the track), and places your quad can be pushed (open spaces). It's just not "the silliest argument a BLOS flyer can ever utter". See the difference?
Slower please . A car used to its potential at a track would be comparable to a dedicated sanctioned flying field , not just anywhere you arbitrarily designate you can fly . See the difference ?
Still a silly argument
silliest argument ? lol i don't think so. not if you take it in context. a toy drone is not a car. a toy drone weighs under a kg and travels about 40kph. A Maserati weighs 2000kg and travels about 200kph. the airspace between say 2m and 100m is by and large uninhabited by people or vehicles. a road is inhabited by multiple people and vehicles.
so no, the argument isn't silly and your analogy isn't relevant.
oh and while we're talking about silliness...god didn't give you the built in desire. that is your reproductive hormones responding to billions of years of evolution.
Skyryder747
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2017
- Messages
- 9
- Reactions
- 3
- Age
- 72
Many good suggestions.
From my previous experience with real aircraft, fly into the head wind. When the drone battery hits 50%, then turn around and use the tail wind to increase your ground speed. Having a tracker and setting RTH above highest ground obstacle would be a given. Sometimes you may not know, but you should take notice when you went out via the change in altitudes on the controller.
From my previous experience with real aircraft, fly into the head wind. When the drone battery hits 50%, then turn around and use the tail wind to increase your ground speed. Having a tracker and setting RTH above highest ground obstacle would be a given. Sometimes you may not know, but you should take notice when you went out via the change in altitudes on the controller.
TheRoach
Well-Known Member
The thing with the drone police posters is that most of them don't even know they are policing. Pointing out your error or the silliness of your opinion creates the feeling that 'Im superior and I'm right". Since God's name was invoked in a previous and inaccurate statement, it is a correct quote to say..."let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."silliest argument ? lol i don't think so. not if you take it in context. a toy drone is not a car. a toy drone weighs under a kg and travels about 40kph. A Maserati weighs 2000kg and travels about 200kph. the airspace between say 2m and 100m is by and large uninhabited by people or vehicles. a road is inhabited by multiple people and vehicles.
so no, the argument isn't silly and your analogy isn't relevant.
oh and while we're talking about silliness...god didn't give you the built in desire. that is your reproductive hormones responding to billions of years of evolution.
Cookedinlh
Well-Known Member
CADORS is the Canadian Incident/Accident reporting system . . everything from a catastrophic crash to a fox on the runway . . Yes it happens. I search from 1 date to another usually last few months . . .Use "Narrative" in the search field . . select "word/text" search and I search in the description for either "drone" or "UAV" or both. We've had lots since Jan and yes some are just plastic garbage bags that only catch the pilot's attention for a second or less. . . but check those around Vancouver harbour where all the seaplanes take off or this one is a good example. I'm pretty confident most pilots know what a drone looks like as opposed to a plastic back if they see it for more than a second.
A British Columbia Helicopters Robinson R44 II (C-FAYQ) reported seeing an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) flying South Bound at approximately 1700' inside the control zone at around 4NM to the NW of Abbotsford, BC (CYXX). The helicopters was flying North Bound at 1000'. The Tower reported the incident to the Abbotsford police.
And your 13,000 bird strikes is about tiny percentage of (more than 10BILLION) all the birds out there that fly everyday and most of which get hit near the airport by large aircraft during takeoff and landing. While the number of drones breaking the law above 400ft is far less encounters (miniscule) with aircraft who venture below 500ft . . their minimum legal altitude. , . . so not a fair comparison.
Or this: . . there are dozens more like them and definitely not plastic bags
A Helijet pilot called from the downtown heliport to report seeing a drone fly over the pads. The description was a white drone of 2-3ft width and that it came from the east, hovered over the heliport at 150' then hovered in front of the seabus lanes. The drone then departed NE over pad 3. No impact on aircraft.
Cookedinlh
Well-Known Member
With proper coordination with the airport, NOTAM, VHF radio . . . not a problem . . . you do have to play the game properly and get qualified SFOC . . . it' snot for recreational flyers and that's why the Interim Order was published . . . unfortunately its a massive over reaction designed to stop recreational flyers from even trying so Transport has a piece of paper to pull out and say "See we told you not to do that" . . .once we get some reasonable Air Regs that might relax a bit . . . hope so. That may not happen now till next year.
Raymondo
Well-Known Member
Must LOS in Australia too. I have flown my Inspire Pro a fair way away. Can still easily lose sight against a complex background like trees. Then I go high until I see it against the sky. Tried to fly my Mavic the same sort of distances but lost sight less than half as far away as it is so small. Looking at strobe options for both beasts. Regardless, you must reconnoitre your flight beforehand for power lines et , which you will not see on your phone until it is too late. Don't rely on collision avoidance features.
